By Olivia Scheck
DNAinfo Reporter/Producer
MANHATTAN — A federal appeals court ruled New York's "three strikes" sentencing provision unconstitutional on Wednesday, opening the door for the law to be struck down by the Supreme Court.
The Persistent Felony Offender statute, known colloquially as the "three strikes" law, allows judges to sentence defendants more harshly if they have previously been convicted of a felony.
According to Wednesday's decision, "the type of judicial fact-finding resulting in enhanced sentences under New York's PFO statute" is prohibited by the Sixth Amendment, which entitles defendants to a trial by jury.
"We're very excited," Jonathan Kirshbaum, a lawyer for one of the four convicts who challenged the law told the New York Post. "A jury-trial right applies to every type of defendant, no matter what their history."
Some defense lawyers told the New York Times that the ruling would allow hundreds of convictions going back to 2004 to be overturned.
However, Kathleen B. Hogan, president of the State District Attorneys Association, argued that a repeal of the law would impede prosecuters' ability to lock up dangerous criminals.
“The most egregious offenders are no longer going to be able to be sentenced to the kinds of sentences courts have imposed,” she told the Times.
Additionally, some have argued that the appeals court's ruling, if affirmed by the Supreme Court, might compromise the rights of defendants.
“It puts a set of facts which had previously been in the judge’s discretion squarely in the hands of a jury,” James A. Cohen, a criminal law expert at Fordham Law School, explained to the Times. Knowledge of a defendant's criminal past, which is often not presented to juries, may have an undue effect on their decision-making, he said.
Wednesday's decision, which refers exclusively to New York law, is one of several similar decisions around the country.
